September 9, 2009

I'm pretty bored by the prospect of another speech, but I did set the DVR to record. I guess it's on now, right? Okay. I'll check it out. Meanwhile, please blab in the comments to make up for my dullness, if you've got any energy around this.

ADDED: But you know, it's the season premiere of "America's Next Top Model." What was Obama thinking?! With all the networks showing Prez O, how many people are flocking to the feet of the great Tyra Banks?

AND: Blah! O's speech. It looks like a State of the Union Address. That seems so wrong. The whole first 15 minutes — the length of a speech to schoolkids — are consumed with various political entities filing in, congressional pageantry, and adulation of the executive.

AND: "Oh! They're wasting time standing up. What bullshit." I'm irritated as hell by the standing ovations. I can't believe anyone is watching.

Obama, once again, stays away from the substance of the legislation in favor of:

-- anecdotes about health insurance horrors-- distortions about the relative quality of US care-- mischaracterizing the views of his opponents-- derogating anyone who disagrees with his ideas as, at best, "bickering" and at worst, "obstruction." No one could possibly disagree on the merits. It's bad faith, period. -- continues to use the Clintonesque "nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." -- Describes the plan completely in terms of assertions of its benefits, leaving out all the trade-offs. -- Makes it seem as if the future of insurance will give people the same choices members of Congress have. -- Claims he's embracing John McCain's idea. -- Tries to honeycoat the fines against anyone who won't buy health care insurance for themselves or their employees.

He should have skipped the myths and admitted up front that Americans had some completely valid concerns, that he appreciated very well. That's really all I wanted from this speech, and at 8:40 it hasn't happened. That, and a clear idea of what his bottom line is - a few basic concepts. He doesn't seem able to do that. It's so frustrating. I'm an uninsured artist, and would love to see reform that didn't put a bandaid on a broken leg. But I haven't seen it.

Sarah Palin to BHO - "One last thing: after President Obama's speech tonight, listen for which pundits use the words "false", "scary", and "risky" in describing the proposals I put forward. That's how you'll be able to tell who the White House counted as "allies" worthy of receiving its talking points. "

I am listening to the Pogues in an attempt to drown out the sound of his voice coming from the living room where my spouse is watching. Can't stand the sound of that man's voice. (O's, not my spouse.) And I don't believe anything he says anyway, so why listen?

It is like a root canal to listen to his tough talk and flat out claims that he can decrease costs by giving more care to more people. He only states that private insurance companies will not be allowed to limit coverage and policy payout ever, which he fails to say makes private Insurance impossible to offer at a fair price...Presto we must pick the government plan that uses taxes to bail out the Government Plan so that it will sell at a fair price even without those limits in a real Insurance plan. That's about it. All the rest is baloney and wild claims of his good will that requires us to trust the good King Obama.

He only states that private insurance companies will not be allowed to limit coverage and policy payout ever, which he fails to say makes private Insurance impossible to offer at a fair price

Public option is starting to look better and better to private insurers, I'll bet. If they can dump unprofitable customers on the public, why not?

Consider flood insurance. Private insurers wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot-pole, so it's offered only by Uncle Sugar. Or earthquake insurance in California. Fire insurers used to offer it -- until 1989. They still can, but most refer homeowners to plans offered by the state Earthquake Authority.

Oh he's not even being the magical orator...it's all become so predictable.

His plan is Unicorn Farts.

Just like alternative energy.

Major kudos to the one who called him out as a liar about his false claim that illegal aliens won't get health care. It's the first thing Brian Williams commented on, then I changed the channel to Glee.

Understand I'm expert at sign language, if I do say so myself, and as a result quite knowledgeable on reading body language. I'm very astute on reading gestures.

Therefore, I'm qualified to observe Obama with the sound off and make as much of it as anybody. This is precisely how Obama is perceived on mute, and this is all you'll ever need to know about his latest speech on healthcare:

The protest about spending by the left didn't center around the fact we were borrowing the money. It centered around the fact that they wanted the money to be spent on social programs. They were OK with spending.

I am ashamed of the Republicans actions during the reign of Bush. Spent my grandchildren's money to fund wild schemes.

I did not watch the speech, as I don't watch politicians give speeches.

However, seeing as how Althouse apparently gave up a few minutes in, it must have been either really awful or really brilliant. If awful, she just walked away. If brilliant, she's crafting something hopefully insightful.

Prediction - health care reform bill signed by Obama before the end of the year.

Democrats have a supermajority in Congress. They could pass and sign a bill tomorrow if they wanted.

The reason they haven't isn't because Republicans are uncooperative. It is because they know their bill will be about as popular as rectal cancer with the voters. They need Republicans to give them cover, so that when the budget and the health care system both go tits-up the blame doesn't fall entirely on Democrats.

Republicans have no incentive to play along. There may be a bill signed by December, but it obviously won't be any of the ones the Democrats are kicking around now.

@somefeller, the smell of fear is because I believe that Obama-inspired healthcare "reform" will be bad for the country in general and bad for my wife and kids in particular.

So I hope you're wrong. I think you're wrong, at least in part because looking at the polls, it appears that any person who votes for healthcare, unless their constituency is deep blue, is looking for a return to civilian life after their next election.

BTW, Barack Obama is an orator? Next to George Bush and gaffe-a-minute Joe Biden perhaps so. But on an absolute scale, I think he'd have settled for a C in my high school speech class.

Somefeller...I agree that there is a smell of fear, but it is coming from Chaiman Obama and his politboro. Their plan was to trick the voters and run away with the loot. This time the voters were awake when the burglars came in the middle of the night. The Pelossi-Obama team has been seriously spooked by Sarah Palin's calling them out like an Elijah on Mt Carmel.

the US is suffering from some serious systematic problems that are not going to be resolved overnight. Increasing income inequality means that the top ten percent of earners earned half of all household income (2007 data). Cutting taxes on this favored few while increasing spending on foreign wars sent w. hat in hand to Red China. Cutting labor costs by shipping production to China made our rich richer while making the average American poorer -- except he can buy more consumer goods by shipping dollars to China which they turn around and lend to the US govt.

Where is that Obama excuse-o-mat, Jeremy? That drivel peddler who constantly drops nuggets like"God lord the man has only been in office XXX days. He's got 65, 60, 55, 50.....percent approval ratings, all you wingnuts do is bitch and moan."?

Some good ideas, but also their feeding her the old "death panels formed of unelected bureaucrats" jeremiad.

It will be interesting to hear from other Republicans - ones who know what they are talking about - from being in the heathcare field or from making great leaps to reform it in the face of budgetary realities (Bobby Jindal, Tom Coburn, and Mitt Romney in particular). It is particularly time for Romney and Jindal to step up. Both guys know that the healthcare status quo is now financially unsustainable and morally questionable and we are far past Reagans "Free markets for freedom lovers" solve any budget problem and "best in the world!!" boasting.

The speech Obama's writers set to be put out on his silver tongue also had some good ideas, but much missing.Tort reform is huge, and I think it will be a sort of sacrificial rook that Obama will proffer up at the right time to eliminate that excuse of the "Freedom Lovers!!" and old Reagan free market worshippers.But Republicans are in a losing game. They kicked the healthcare crisis down the road for decades after Nixon saw the writing on the wall and tried to fix it before it became catastrophic for the whole US economy. Stopped by conservative Republicans, by Teddy Kennedy's inflexible partisanship, and Watergate. Now 35 years later, we finally are left with no choice but to deal with it.

And the best the Republicans could do was offer premium-priced drugs to seniors with no increase in taxes - funding it with more government debt until what they thought was "supply side growth" would pay for it all.

Now they have to join in. All Sarah Palin's screaming about death panels and other cute slogans her writers feed her will not stop it.There will be a compromise, and it will not be something left wing or right wing people are happy about.

And it is time for Romney and Jindal to step out of the shadows and work with the Governors, businesses, moderate Dems, and the remaining Republicans left in the Imperial City - to deal with fixing all the neglect since Nixon's day without cutting all American's throats in the process.

Increasing income inequality means that the top ten percent of earners earned half of all household income (2007 data).

And paid 71.22% of the income tax. Up from 67.33% at the end of Clinton's second term.

Income inequality isn't a problem. Most Americans are emotionally mature enough to enjoy happy lives even through Paris Hilton is rich. The real problem the country faces is that the majority of eligible voters no longer have to pay for the government spending they vote for. That's an unsustainable situation. That's why we're facing the largest budget gap in human history right now.

Democrats have a supermajority in Congress. They could pass and sign a bill tomorrow if they wanted.

That's only somewhat true. A few Blue Dogs can join with the very unified anti-reform Republicans to block a bill. But, in the end, that's not going to happen. If anything, the town halls showed a lot of Democrats that they are going to be attacked and lied about no matter what they do, so they may as well stick with the party. Either hang together or hang separately, as the saying goes. There is still a lot of intra-party debate on where to go with this, but in the end, the logic of victory is too much to ignore. A bill will pass. Maybe not one with a strong governmental public option, but one will pass nonetheless.

The Pelossi-Obama team has been seriously spooked by Sarah Palin's calling them out like an Elijah on Mt Carmel.

I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility. We need to not demagog our opponents or use scare tactics and spread disinformation. So all you racist, hillybilly tea bagging nazis better shut the f up.

We need to put aside partisanship and come toghether and incorporate the best common sense ideas from all sides. So all you republicans, stop being so partisan and simply vote for this even though it has nothing you want and you were denied access to the enactment of the bill. And remember I won (you racist teabagging nazis)!And screw you tort reform!

My plan is all about saving money even though the CBO is saying my plan will cost money and even though my ideas don't actually save any money (like preventive care).

I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate. And there’s some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness. But we need reform now and this bill is too important for us to simply do nothing which is what the evil racist nazi republicans are suggesting. And even though this plan wont actually take effect for 4 years or so.

C-4...Are you afraid of Sarah Palin too? And how can you presume that she can never be skilled enough to write down political arguements after she has spent 15 years of successfully being a politician in Alaska? Get real.

Or vote with the Republicans against the bill, and then your Republican opponents can't "lie" about your health care vote at all.

Which is what is actually going to happen. When push comes to shove nobody in Congress cares about anything as much as they care about getting re-elected. Americans are against Obama's plan, and Americans in "blue dog" districts even more strongly so.

Bill will pass, we'll move on to the next thing, health care will be improved to some extent. Life will go on and the fight will go on. Exhaustion with Obama by middle-aged white women will shade into familiar contempt, like I had with Bush, that will one day approach some mix of pity and affection when he is gone.

Which is what is actually going to happen. When push comes to shove nobody in Congress cares about anything as much as they care about getting re-elected. Americans are against Obama's plan, and Americans in "blue dog" districts even more strongly so.

As far as where Americans are on the issue, that depends what you ask and when. The main thing Americans seem to like is a winner, and if Obama pulls off a win on this, it makes all Democrats run stronger. Plus, most Congressman are in safe districts and most Senators aren't up for re-election in 2010, so that plays in favor of passage of a bill.

@somefeller, here's the problem I have with you and your foolish attitude. All you want to do is score wins versus loses. You don't seem to know, much less care, what's actually in HR 3200, and whether it's good or bad for America.

@fls, I think I agree with you about incomes. I think we should start with football players. Millions of dollars to catch an occasional pass? Clearly wide receivers don't need multi-million dollar salaries. And linemen? They hardly ever even touch the ball and yet they make hundreds of thousands of dollar, sometimes right out of college. I nominate you to get to the nearest NFL training facility and tell the players that for the sake of America you plan to redistribute their income. I suggest you start with the linebackers and defensive line.

And don't get me started on the money dragged down by over-the-hill singers whose pipes are flat out gone. If Streisand can't live on social security alone then that's her problem.

Americans arent against it, Rev.They are for it. You are here to hear people of like mind and that might have warped yours.But you can still hate everything THE ONE, Barry, does.Major Kudos to you Kentucky Liz-you shine like a starburst. Charmed!

@somefeller, here's the problem I have with you and your foolish attitude. All you want to do is score wins versus loses. You don't seem to know, much less care, what's actually in HR 3200, and whether it's good or bad for America.

Yeah, well I am a competitive guy that likes to win. If nothing else, the tears and lamentations of my adversaries are an exquisite pleasure. However, I have a pretty good idea about what the plans are on the table from the Democrats on health care (Obama laid them out tonight), and I'm confident they will be good for America. But, as far as the minutia of what's on page 336 of HB 3200 (prior to reconciliation with the Senate and any other revisions between now and signing), I confess, I don't spend time on that level of detail, unless I'm paid to do so. The wonks can take care of that part.

Well, why even worry about any of the details. Just support whatever comes out of the sausage factory, pay your taxes, and take whatever they give you.

Do you know every detail of every bill that you care about? For example, every jot and jittle of each of the federal budgets of the last several years? Of course not, no one can or does. So can the self-righteous blather.

"It not convenient for me to follow the argument, because my government betters will take care of me."

Bills I care about I follow. I even download them and read them. And I call my representative or write e-mails. (I've e-mailed our senators, but they're useless sycophants--whatever a (D) proposes is diamonds; whatever an (R) proposes is horse manure.)

So I'll take being an educated voter, and you can have the sit-back-and-take-whatever-you get corner.

For once, I agree with FLS, but I think his snark is actually one of the leading tones to Obama's political death knell. A lot of people wanted to believe the pretty lies. (Or at least a subset of them; it's amazing the number of people who voted for Obama assuming he was lying to some other constituency than the ones they personally cared about.)

The only people in the end he'll keep are the "My (Democratic) Party, right or wrong" types. That's a good 30% of the population.

That explains why Republican victory on the Iraq war resolution led to them having both the White House and a supermajority in Congress.

No, but it does explain why the GOP won in 2002 and Bush won in 2004. People like the side that looks like its standing for something and being strong. Time makes all victories fade, but it's better to have a victory that fades than the alternative.

If Democrats support the bill, and the American people support the bill... why did Obama just give a prime-time speech explaining how important it is to support the bill? According to you he already has all the support he could possibly need. Why hasn't the bill been signed into law already?

So glad to see I'm in such good company. Rose was wrote the first comment 2 1/2 years ago, and those were some of my sentiments at the time. I was making a point of staying away from the tv or radio or anyplace where I might hear him droning on with the usual lies and distortions.

word verification: cakerswe know what birthers and truthers are; so maybe cakers are people who think that this speech may have been a Marie Antoinette moment.

"Yeah, well I am a competitive guy that likes to win. If nothing else, the tears and lamentations of my adversaries are an exquisite pleasure"

LOL, this from the guy who starts crying and screaming racist at modest questioning of AA? You're weak. That's why you put up such a ridiculous front. That's why you delete half your comments. There's no need for that. This is the internet and it's not that important. Take a chill pill.

But it doesn't explain why the Republicans lost in 1992 and 1996.Or 2008, for that matter.

Actually, it does. Would you say that Bush in 1992, Dole in 1996 or McCain in 2008 looked like strong, resolute leaders of a confident political party that stood for something? Obviously, there are a lot of factors that go into political victory, but don't underestimate the importance of how victory feeds itself, and how people will rally around the party that looks like it's dealing from a position of strength.

LOL, this from the guy who starts crying and screaming racist at modest questioning of AA? You're weak. That's why you put up such a ridiculous front. That's why you delete half your comments. There's no need for that. This is the internet and it's not that important. Take a chill pill.

Er, no, I delete them from time to time and then repost them immediately if I see typos in them. I'm something of a perfectionist. But, if all you can do is type "LOL" and lose debates, I guess you do the best with what you have.

Would you say that Bush in 1992, Dole in 1996 or McCain in 2008 looked like strong, resolute leaders of a confident political party that stood for something?

That's an obvious "yes" in the first two cases. Bush had just won a war and presided over the final collapse of the Soviet Union, and Dole was running just after the Republicans had swept to a crushing victory in the '94 midterms, retaking Congress for the first time in two generations.

Rev, all I can say to that is, while I'd agree with you on some of the background facts you cite, most observers I've heard, including most Republican ones, wouldn't use words like strong or resolute to describe how Bush 41 and Dole (both of whom I voted for, actually, I was a Republican in those days) looked or campaigned in those years.

If Democrats support the bill, and the American people support the bill... why did Obama just give a prime-time speech explaining how important it is to support the bill?

Why do Christians go to church every week? Surely they've already made the decision to be Christians, and surely they've already heard everything the preacher might say. Further, how could Billy Graham fill stadiums?

Even if you think it is, do you seriously think it's solvable, and are you sure you want that society with no upward mobility, no challenge, no motivation no incentive, no dreams. We are not ants, nor do I want to be.

He should have opened with a virgin sacrifice and a promise of a boffo closing where he would have an enemy of the state, rumors are swirling that it is to be either Dick Cheney or Ronald Reagan(until the eager beavers were told that Reagan was dead). Then, like Geraldo looking for Capone's vault, simply bored us to death but kept us watching for fear of missing the last act.

Remember the movie "A day without Mexicans"? Imagine "A day without income disparity". Most of what you have, love and depend on would disappear, because nobody would want to make it for you. This includes music, movies, art, houses, medicine, food, pretty much everything.

Seriously, though, think what you're saying. Obama demanded a chunk of prime-time television... so that he could preach to the converted? On somebody else's dime? The nicest thing you could say about your theory is that Obama's egotism has gotten completely out of hand.

Fortunately, of course, you're entirely wrong. Obama is preaching to America because the majority of Americans think his plan is bunk.

I saw the speech. He's persuasive and uplifting so long as he sticks to generalities. But those damn facts kept dropping like guana from his flights of fancy. He says that the 600b savings in medicare and medicaid will go a long way to fund this plan. If Sarah said something like that she would wink at the audience to let them know that they're sharing a joke.

Most of what you have, love and depend on would disappear, because nobody would want to make it for you. This includes music, movies, art, houses, medicine, food, pretty much everything.

That's such a load of shit. Not everyone lives in Southern California, Tucson or El Paso.

(Interestingly, the Del Taco I go to near work appears to have mostly people from Central America working there, not Mexico. Still, not being able to eat at Del Taco would be an minor inconvenience, not a disappointment)

Speaking of Kathleen Sibelius, I thought she looked a bit nervous when the camera panned to her after Obama said that Medicare (another government plan) was not working. I was imagining her thinking, "Was it wise of him to say that?"

A bit later we realize he had to say that, because this is where he was getting all his money to cover the additional people - Medicare waste and fraud.

"That's only somewhat true. A few Blue Dogs can join with the very unified anti-reform(1) Republicans to block a bill.(2) But, in the end, that's not going to happen. If anything, the town halls showed a lot of Democrats that they are going to be attacked and lied(3) about no matter what they do, so they may as well stick with the party.(4)"

mmmmmmmm, kool-aid. yum.

(1) READ HR 3400, GOP alternative. It smokes.(2) MINIMUM of 44 Dem "NO" votes on public option. It is SUNK.(3) LIAR! Most of the 'lies' told about Obamacare are ... true. Like the CBO costs estimates or the lack of verification in hr3200 to prevent illegal aliens ffrom getting benefits - facts are stubborn. Being a DNC-robot-hack is unbecoming.(4) Enjoy your retirement, Congressman!

They are preaching the Gospel -- a wholly unnecessary service to those many congregants who have read the Bible cover to cover many times.

No they are providing a place where a service can be held that is ritualistic and which is part of the christian tradition (and which is ongoing) . So to argue that it is unecessary is completely erroneous. That would be like saying Muslems don't have to pray or fast because they've read the koran a couple of times.

FLS -- What a foolish statement. Most people who go to church have never read so much as one book of the Bible, and what they have read they don't understand for a bevy of reasons, mostly self-imposed. You obviously know very little about churchgoers.

I hear Obama's war in Afghanistan is going poorly. We won in Iraq. The tax cuts were outstanding. I only wish that there could have been a corresponding cut in government expenditures.

Of course, Bush's budgets were exceedingly modest compared to Obama's, and Obama's federal government will have less money as he raises taxes, and the inescapable logic of the Laffer Curve coupled with the inescapable facts of continued economic malaise decrease tax revenue.

7M, good summary. I think the average Democrat thinks that a tax rate of 100% will mean tax revenues will be 100% of all income, because people smart enough to make money are still stupid when it comes to long-range planning.

How's that working in NY state?

WV: brillism, Lady Ophelia's belief that all she needed was a strong enough scrubbing pad